Hello Jason,
Tuesday, August 29, 2006, 9:35:13 PM, you wrote:
JAH On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:17 PM, James Dickens wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
Start with a
On 8/30/06, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, August 29, 2006, 9:35:13 PM, you wrote:
JAH On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:17 PM, James Dickens wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
awesome idea.
James Dickens wrote:
Why not make a snapshots on a production and then send incremental
backups over net? Especially with a lot of files it should be MUCH
faster than rsync.
because its a ZFS limited solution, if the source is not ZFS it won't
work, and i'm not sure how much faster
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed the zfs send/recv
to
Dick Davies wrote:
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 07:51:45PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
Why not make a snapshots on a production and then send incremental
backups over net? Especially with a lot of files it should be MUCH
faster than rsync.
because its a ZFS limited solution, if the source is not ZFS it won't
work, and i'm not sure how much faster incrementals would be than
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
Start with a one or two large SATA/PATA drives if you use two and
don't need the space you can mirror other wise just use as in raid0,
On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:17 PM, James Dickens wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
Start with a one or two large SATA/PATA drives if you use two and
don't need the
On August 29, 2006 2:17:06 PM -0500 James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
Seems to me 'zfs send | zfs recv' would be both faster and more efficient.
-frank
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 30/08/2006, at 5:17 AM, James Dickens wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
Start with a one or two large SATA/PATA drives if you use two and
don't need the space
On 8/29/06, James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
If you combine this with a de-duplication algorithm you could get
really space-efficient backups.
Suppose you have 100 (or 1000, or 1) machines to back up that are
the same 3 GB OS image + mixed bag of
12 matches
Mail list logo
